Signs of "Connected Consciousness" Detected on Global Scale

a reply to: neoholographic

according to MY source (wikipedia):

PEAR's primary purpose was to engage in parapsychological exercises on topics such as telekinesis and remote viewing. The program had a strained relationship with Princeton University, and was considered "an embarrassment to science."

It has been noted that a single test subject (presumed to be a member of PEAR’s staff) participated in 15% of PEAR’s trials, and was responsible for half of the total observed effect. PEAR’s results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility. In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR’s results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results. An attempt by York University’s Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR’s results. PEAR’s activities have also been criticized for their lack of scientific rigor, poor methodology, and misuse of statistics.

complete with sources, which can be found in the article linked below.

en.wikipedia.org...

i am finding less and less reason to take this stuff seriously. not saying that global consciousness is fake or impossible, just saying that what you are doing here to prove it really isnt working.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Most of what you have posted has been disputed. Your source isn't Wikipedia but it's The Skeptical Inquirer and The Skeptics Dictionary. Two bastions of bias towards anything that they don't agree with.

These are skeptics trying to sway you to think as they do. Here's a quote from an actual skeptic that was commissioned to study the evidence and not just cherry pick the evidence for the Skeptics dictionary.

This is from skeptic Ray Hyman back in 1995.

1. The SAIC experiments on anomalous mental phenomena are statistically and methodologically superior to the earlier SRI remote viewing research as well as to previous parapsychological studies. In particular, the experiments avoided the major flaw of non-independent trials for a given viewer. The investigators also made sure to avoid the problems of multiple statistical testing that was characteristic of much previous parapsychological research.

3. Although, I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental program is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have been eliminated. Historically, each new paradigm in parapsychology has appeared to its designers and contemporary critics as relatively flawless. Only subsequently did previously unrecognized drawbacks come to light. Just as new computer programs require a shakedown period before hidden bugs come to light, each new scientific program requires scrutiny over time in the public arena before its defects emerge. Some possible sources of problems for the SAIC program are its reliance on experienced viewers, and the use of the same judge--one who is familiar to the viewers, for all the remote viewing.

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

Again, a skeptic who had to actually be honest instead of cherry picking for the Skeptics Dictionary.

I suggest that people look at the research. This is why I have listed mountains of research and experiments. This is so you don't have to take just my word or the word of skeptics writing for the Skeptics Dictionary. These things haven't bee invalidated by cherry picking from skeptics and this is why 100 Scientist signed onto this.

A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness

Science thrives when there is an open, informed discussion of all evidence, and recognition that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision. This attitude is in stark contrast with reaching conclusions based solely on a previous set of beliefs or on the assertions of authority figures. Indeed, the search for knowledge wherever it may lead inspired a group of notable scientists and philosophers to found in 1882 the Society for Psychical Research in London. Its purpose was “to investigate that large body of debatable phenomena… without prejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the areas in consciousness they investigated such as psychological dissociation, hypnosis, and preconscious cognition are now well integrated into mainstream science. That has not been the case with research on phenomena such as purported telepathy or precognition, which some scientists (a clear minority according to the surveys conducted en.wikademia.org...) dis-miss a priori as pseudoscience or illegitimate. Contrary to the negative impression given by some critics, we would like to stress the following:

journal.frontiersin.org...

Finally, I think this debate is an important one and I'm glad that it's staying near or at the top of the Science and Technology folder. I have to thank the blind skeptics and materialist in part for keeping the thread near the top of this folder with some of their illogical rantings.

The main problem here is honesty. Sadly, many of the people who are blind skeptics and materialist are just dishonest.

Are there still questions to be asked? Of Course, but to act like there's no evidence and everyone who intelligently looks into these areas are just practicing woo is just illogical.

LET'S KEEP THE DEBATE GOING!

originally posted by: neoholographic

No, they didn't have to rule out all other possibilities, just possibilities that could have produced the underlying anomaly.

...which is ruling out all other possibilities. Yet you say the the psi researchers don't have to do this. This is nonsense.

a reply to: GetHyped

Of course Psi researchers rule out other possibilities. The fact is, skeptics can't keep saying that all of these other possibilities exist without a shred of evidence that these other possibilities can produce the observed result.

This is why Utts said this:

Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original report.

A skeptic has yet to carry out an experiment with trials that even come close to insuring success.

Again, you can't say it could be X or it could be Y without any evidence that X or Y can cause the observed phenomena. Why should you expect Psi Researchers to rule out possibilities that lazy skeptics won't even take the time to show that these possibilities can cause the observed phenomena??????????

a reply to: neoholographic

Most of what you have posted has been disputed. Your source isn't Wikipedia but it's The Skeptical Inquirer and The Skeptics Dictionary. Two bastions of bias towards anything that they don't agree with.

most of what ive posted has been disputed...by what? wheres the rebuttal? i dont see any. i see you talking trash and repeating yourself a lot and posting a bunch of stuff from obscure sites without explaining your personal understanding of what they are talking about. i dont even believe you actually understand what they are talking about. you see they agree and you post it. end of story.

you are welcome to convince me otherwise.

Hi guys,

There is a thread that discusses a topic about how serious the consequences of the actions of people who own technology that already takes enormous advantage of the ability to remotely tell what people say to themselves/(think to themselves) in their supposed "private" moments.

I have commented in this thread that I speak of and I would suggest that you read through it - if you are serious about uncovering what technology that taps into global consciousness has to do with the world you live in and how it is changing that world in very serious ways.

The thread starts out by being the description of an animation made by a company... whose work is later explained by what I have written about the reasons for it's existence - on page 16 and beginning of page 17 of the commentary.

There is also another thread that addresses the same video, in which I have commented to the end of page 2 - that further opens up information on the existence of this video.

In a nutshell, my descriptions surround the use of technology that taps into what you call "global consciousness", to take money making ideas from people, and even to force health issues on people who are treated as "slaves" for just such monetary gain - but also to run the world's political systems to a certain extent.

There is considerable reading involved, and so these links are not necessarily for the faint of heart. There are occasionally posters who confirm what I have written in their own way, but that would take a much more careful reading through the entire threads to see who have confirmed what was written.

Here are the links:


ATS topic: Interpretation of Heliofant's "I, Pet Goat II"
(the longer thread with my comments on page 17)

and
ATS topic: Hidden Themes of Heliophant's "I, Pet Goat II"
(the shorter thread with my comments on page 2)

My interest is specifically about the Human-Machine Interface to the RNG device. In all of the statistics flying around in the previous posts, how many of those are related to the Global Consciousness Project, and how many are related to the actual measuring and detecting apparatus?

Am I correct in understanding that many of the skeptics here acknowledge that there is a measurable effect of some sort?

Have there been repeatable experiments where these effects can be detected? Is there at least one set of experimental conditions where this effect can be reliably detected?

From an engineering perspective, I prefer to go in the opposite direction of the skeptics. My goal is to exploit the effect, whatever its source. If the human-machine interface appears to be controlled by implementing Psi techniques, then that is the basis on which invention and design proceed.

This is the opposite approach to the science presented in the previous messages. It is in my best interest to give the effect every opportunity to manifest. The "scientific approach" is to narrow down the exact set of conditions necessary to prove a rather narrowly defined hypothesis.

Of course the applicability of the effect, would be constrained by the set of conditions necessary to reproduce it. Therefore, the marketability of a product based on the effect may be limited to specific domains (e.g. Homeland Security). Or, it may appeal more generally to the consumer market, who are more forgiving of a novelty that doesn't work for everyone equally.

Once there's money to be made, there's money to invest in research.

Does this make me a materialist?




Dex

originally posted by: DexterRiley

Am I correct in understanding that many of the skeptics here acknowledge that there is a measurable effect of some sort?

The effect has never been demonstrated as being above usual statistical fluctuations.

Have there been repeatable experiments where these effects can be detected? Is there at least one set of experimental conditions where this effect can be reliably detected?

It's unreplicable and unfalsifiable because there is no predictive power, it's all subjective and retrospective. Novelty is assigned after a statistical fluctuation. There's not even any robust criteria for what counts as a novel event, other than "the numbers did something hours or days before and we've arbitrarily attributed them to one of the many events going on around the world".

a reply to: GetHyped

You said:

The effect has never been demonstrated as being above usual statistical fluctuations.

The Skeptic Ray Hyman disagrees with you. He said:

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

Here's a skeptic that was commissioned to objectively look at the evidence instead of writing an article for the skeptic dictionary.

Let me repeat.

The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort.

Skeptics claim that these things don't exist or there's no evidence and that's just a flat out lie. The sad part is these materialist are so blind, they can't simply say, yes there's evidence but there's not enough evidence to support the underlying hypothesis.

Blind pseudoskeptics have to go overboard and they have to claim that everyone looking into these areas is doing so for no reason at all. Their just blind idiots and practitioners of woo.

A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness

Science thrives when there is an open, informed discussion of all evidence, and recognition that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision. This attitude is in stark contrast with reaching conclusions based solely on a previous set of beliefs or on the assertions of authority figures. Indeed, the search for knowledge wherever it may lead inspired a group of notable scientists and philosophers to found in 1882 the Society for Psychical Research in London. Its purpose was “to investigate that large body of debatable phenomena… without prejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the areas in consciousness they investigated such as psychological dissociation, hypnosis, and preconscious cognition are now well integrated into mainstream science. That has not been the case with research on phenomena such as purported telepathy or precognition, which some scientists (a clear minority according to the surveys conducted en.wikademia.org...) dis-miss a priori as pseudoscience or illegitimate. Contrary to the negative impression given by some critics, we would like to stress the following:

100 Scientist signed onto this statement and here's some of them.

Daryl Bem, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Cornell University, USA

Etzel Cardeña, Thorsen Professor of Psychology, Lund University, Sweden

Bernard Carr, Professor in Mathematics and Astronomy, University of London, UK

C. Robert Cloninger, Renard Professor of Psychiatry, Genetics, and Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, USA

Robert G. Jahn, Past Dean of Engineering, Princeton University, USA

Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, UK (Nobel prizewinner in physics, 1973)

Menas C. Kafatos, Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics, Chapman University, USA

Irving Kirsch, Professor of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Lecturer in Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA, UK

Mark Leary, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, USA

Dean Radin, Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Adjunct Faculty in Psychology, Sonoma State University, USA

Robert Rosenthal, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Riverside, Edgar Pierce Professor Emeritus, Harvard University, USA

Lothar Schäfer, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Arkansas, USA

Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, UK

Charles T. Tart, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, University of California, Davis, USA

Simon Thorpe, Director of Research CNRS (Brain and Cognition), University of Toulouse, France

Patrizio Tressoldi, Researcher in Psychology, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy

Jessica Utts, Professor and Chair of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, USA

Max Velmans, Professor Emeritus in Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK

Caroline Watt, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Edinburgh University, UK

Phil Zimbardo, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, Stanford University, USA

And…

P. Baseilhac, Researcher in Theoretical Physics, University of Tours, France

Eberhard Bauer, Dept. Head, Institute of Border Areas of Psychology and Mental Hygiene, Freiburg,

Of course, all of these Scientist must be idiots and practitioners of woo.

Here's what Jessica Utts, Professor and Chair of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, USA said who worked with the skeptic Hyman in the 1995 study.

Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original report.

EXCELLENT POINTS!!!

Utts didn't say this in a vacuum, the skeptic Hyman said the same thing.

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

I AGREE WITH UTTS THAT REAL EFFECTS ARE OCCURRING IN THESE EXPERIMENTS!!

Not flukes or mere statistical fluctuations but REAL EFFECTS THAT'S TOO LARGE AND CONSISTENT TO ATTRIBUTE TO STATISTICAL FLUKES OF ANY SORT!!!

a reply to: neoholographic

Sigh

Ignoring the plethora of criticisms from all the other sources as usual. Ignoring the glaring fact that the burden of proof is on the claimant to ensure no other explanation is responsible as usual.

Devise a methodology that has predictive power to unambiguously associate a clearly defined "novel event" with fluctuations that cannot be explained through typical statistical fluctuations. Of course, you'll have to narrow the scope down to a predefined geographical region so it doesn't become a massive fishing expedition (because at any given time in the world, something is happening). Let's hear how you would address the criticisms of the GCP.

a reply to: GetHyped

Let's hear how you would address the criticisms of the GCP.

I think we've heard already—ignore the criticisms altogether.

I agree with the OP in the sense that materialists tend to dogmatism, being that matter and physical are poorly defined concepts, but then again, trading one poorly defined concept with an even more poorly defined concept, and then being even more dogmatic about it, is an amusing irony. At least this sort of hypocrisy, combined with the ad hominem, appeal to authority (at least selectively), makes his agenda a nice comedy to read with a morning coffee.

a reply to: GetHyped

Asked and answered over and over again. This is why this thread has 92 posts.

I have answered you skeptics and materialist again and again and you guys are like cockroaches when you're losing a debate. It seems the same skeptics keep asking the same questions and when you ask one question here comes another one under a different name asking the same question.

Do you guys have multiple accounts?

You talked about ignoring the plethora of criticism. Of course you ignore most of it because it's just pure nonsense. Utts summed it up with these statements.

Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original report.

Here's more:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well-established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance...there is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.

So some criticism is valid but you can't spend time being concerned with the plethora of criticism coming from skeptics because most of it is cherry picking and meaningless. It's skeptics talking to other skeptics in places like Skeptics dictionary or the Skeptical inquirer.

There's a plethora of criticism for inflation

There's a plethora if criticism for black holes

There's a plethora of criticism for the big bang

There's a plethora of criticism for evolution

There's a plethora of criticism for Einstein and Relativity

In some instances, the criticism is valid especially for black holes, the big bang and evolution without intelligent design. But even then some of the criticism is ridiculous and Scientist can't spend time answering the plethora of criticism coming from skeptics when that criticism isn't valid.

For instance, skeptics criticize psi research but they feel like any criticism of the research is valid. How can you deal honestly with a blind skeptic when they're starting from a dishonest position??

Yes, there are valid criticisms f psi research just like they're valid criticism of inflation or the big bang. The problem with much of the criticism for psi it comes from pseudoskeptics and blind materialist who will not even acknowledge that this research is valid and there's mountains of research in these areas. Everyone looking into these things are practitioners of woo and pseudoscience and again, how can you have an honest debate about the accumulation of evidence when the psuedoskeptics start of in such a blind position? I go back to the call by 100 scientist about consciousness.

A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness

Science thrives when there is an open, informed discussion of all evidence, and recognition that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision. This attitude is in stark contrast with reaching conclusions based solely on a previous set of beliefs or on the assertions of authority figures. Indeed, the search for knowledge wherever it may lead inspired a group of notable scientists and philosophers to found in 1882 the Society for Psychical Research in London. Its purpose was “to investigate that large body of debatable phenomena… without prejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the areas in consciousness they investigated such as psychological dissociation, hypnosis, and preconscious cognition are now well integrated into mainstream science. That has not been the case with research on phenomena such as purported telepathy or precognition, which some scientists (a clear minority according to the surveys conducted en.wikademia.org...) dis-miss a priori as pseudoscience or illegitimate. Contrary to the negative impression given by some critics, we would like to stress the following:

(1) Research on parapsychological phenomena (psi) is being carried out in various accredited universities and research centers throughout the world by academics in different disciplines trained in the scientific method (e.g., circa 80 Ph.D.s have been awarded in psi-related topics in the UK in recent years). This research has continued for over a century despite the taboo against investigating the topic, almost complete lack of funding, and professional and personal attacks (Cardeña, 201). The Parapsychological Association has been an affiliate of the AAAS since 1969, and more than 20 Nobel prizewinners and many other eminent scientists have supported the study of psi or even conducted research themselves (Cardeña, 2013).

(2) Despite a negative attitude by some editors and reviewers, results supporting the validity of psi phenomena continue to be published in peer-reviewed, academic journals in relevant fields, from psychology to neuroscience to physics e.g., (Storm et al., 2010; Bem, 2011; Hameroff, 2012; Radin et al., 2012).

(3) Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses (Sherwood and Roe, 2003; Schmidt et al., 2004; Bösch et al., 2006; Radin et al., 2006; Storm et al., 2010, 2012, 2013; Tressoldi, 2011; Mossbridge et al., 2012; Schmidt, 2012).

(4) These meta-analyses and other studies (Blackmore, 1980)suggest that data supportive of psi phenomena cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or by a “file drawer” effect. Indeed, contrary to most disciplines, parapsychology journals have for decades encouraged publication of null results and of papers critical of a psi explanation (Wiseman et al., 1996; Schönwetter et al., 2011). A psi trial registry has been established to improve research practice www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk...

(5) The effect sizes reported in most meta-analyses are relatively small and the phenomena cannot be produced on demand, but this also characterizes various phenomena found in other disciplines that focus on complex human behavior and performance such as psychology and medicine (Utts, 1991; Richard and Bond, 2003).

(6) Although more conclusive explanations for psi phenomena await further theoretical and research developments, they do not prima facie violate known laws of nature given modern theories in physics that transcend classical restrictions of time and space, combined with growing evidence for quantum effects in biological systems (Sheehan, 2011; Lambert et al., 2013).

VERY POWERFUL INDEED!!!

It's simply dishonest the way skeptics try to display Psi research. It's like the Scientist doing this research are idiots when many of them are respected Professors with published papers in many fields and some are Nobel prize winners.

journal.frontiersin.org...

a reply to: neoholographic

I got like 4 voices in my head, either I'm connected, being mkultrad or just going insane . either way i have fun with it. I like the girl she knows me so well but the older sister and dad dont.

originally posted by: Vamana
interesting stuff really but it would be better this lamp was cheaper, I mean 250$ freaking ridiculous.

Yeah, and it's like $6.25/month for that text service. These are scams. It's just like the money making remote viewing scams.

a reply to: Adaluncatif

It's just silly to call it a scam because they're charging money for some things. They have to charge money for these things in order to raise money for continued research. Most of the people who will be buying these things support the research and want to give them the money to help with the research.

It's no different than a Kickstarter campaign where people pay a lot of money for a reward because they want to give more money to the project.

It's simply simple minded to automatically label everything a scam because it charges money. The same thing happened with D-Wave Quantum Computers. Skeptics yelled scam because they were charging money and they were charging 10-15 million. Now NASA, Google and other researchers are using D-Wave computers for research.

So skeptics will always blindly deny everything and call everything that they don't agree with a scam. A Researcher can't worry about this nonsense especially when there's a lack of funding for Psi Research opposed to say String Theory which has no observed evidenced to support it. With Psi Research, you even have skeptics saying the effect is real.

4. The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort. Although I cannot dismiss the possibility that these rejections of the null hypothesis might reflect limitations in the statistical model as an approximation of the experimental situation, I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.

And like I said, there's a lack of funding..

(1) Research on parapsychological phenomena (psi) is being carried out in various accredited universities and research centers throughout the world by academics in different disciplines trained in the scientific method (e.g., circa 80 Ph.D.s have been awarded in psi-related topics in the UK in recent years). This research has continued for over a century despite the taboo against investigating the topic, almost complete lack of funding, and professional and personal attacks (Cardeña, 201). The Parapsychological Association has been an affiliate of the AAAS since 1969, and more than 20 Nobel prizewinners and many other eminent scientists have supported the study of psi or even conducted research themselves (Cardeña, 2013).

So, SURPRISE, they're charging money for these things that will help raise money for more research.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: neoholographic

I know from personal experience minds can connect to one another. When I become really comfortable with one another, it is almost as if we share a "we." Our moods effect each other inexplicably, we know what the others are thinking without understanding how, and we can sense each other. I knew beyond a doubt when my grandmother died, I began crying immediately. I refused to participate in school until they let me call my mom, and sure enough, when I called, she had passed. Also, I've communicated with others like me both online and in real life and felt them sorting around my mind, although when they do it in my company it is much more intense as an experience.

I don't know if the average person walks around connected to anyone else much of the time or if we have some shared subconsciousness, although I would suspect on some level we do. Just think about this, all the things you dream about come from somewhere. You can either take the arrogant approach and assume that your mind is so great that it creates all of that detail from nothing, or you can assume that you are tapped into something shared, beyond what we understand presently.

If my mind is truly capable of creating detailed worlds with unique people and settings, clothing, fragrances, music, languages, colors that are far more intense than real life etc, then why am I not more creative in my waking life? What happens to the people I dream about when I wake up? Do they realize they are just figments of my imagination? Do I commit mass genocide six or seven times a night? How irresponsible!

I have a similar experience. Years ago, when my girlfriend's best friend died in a car accident, I felt her grief hundreds of miles away. My dad happened to leave a voicemail for me at the time, and when I listened to it, I was SURE he had to tell me that someone died (He didn't specify why he was calling). Turns out I was mistakenly attributing the feelings I was having with his voicemail. Someone HAD died, but not in my family.

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information

a reply to: adjensen


Thanks for the heads up. I will be listening and I will be interested in everyones opinion.

a reply to: adjensen

Listened to the show and it was pretty good. The female host really had her facts together about the research in these areas.

The skeptics sadly were way off. They didn't refute any of the evidence or the science.

When a skeptic has to resort to calling things woo or pseudoscience, it's a clear indication that they can't refute any of the evidence. I think the skeptic also used magical in there. These code words are so vacuous and devoid of any logical discussion, they should be banned.

He basically said, why do people have to use quantum mechanics to explain magic or the supernatural.

WHO CLAIMED THESE THINGS WERE MAGIC OR SUPERNATURAL?

Again, when skeptics have to resort to this it just means they have no argument and they hope people are dumb enough to think just saying these words without any sort of intelligent rebuttal means something.

At the end of the day, why can't Quantum Mechanics explain some of these things? Especially when there evidence that supports some of the research.

It's better than any explanation when it comes to consciousness coming from materialist.

So, it was a decent discussion, I just wish you had more knowledgeable skeptics on the show. Like I said, when you hear woo, supernatural, magic and pseudoscience, these are words used when the skeptics can't intelligently respond to the topic.

What prohibits Quantum Mechanics from explaining some of these things? Materialism explains nothing. So quantum woo really means, you can't look at quantum mechanics outside the scope of my materialist beliefs.

The other skeptical guest asked some decent questions, but the one skeptic added nothing to the debate but the usual illogical skepticism you see from time to time.

Good discussion and I wish the skeptic who was asking questions without the use of woo, supernatural, magic and pseudoscience would have been allowed to speak more.